ai_invoice_stack_inspect

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'Read-only' and describes a snapshot, indicating no side effects. However, it lacks details on error handling (e.g., missing move_id), authorization requirements, rate limits, or whether it performs multiple API calls. The description is adequate but could disclose more behavioral characteristics.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, efficient sentence fragment plus 'Read-only.' It conveys the essential information without waste. The colon list is somewhat informal but readable. Could be slightly improved with clearer formatting, but it earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the output format, prerequisites (e.g., active Odoo connection), or whether the snapshot is expensive. For a cross-layer snapshot, more context would help the agent anticipate invocation behavior and result structure.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description should explain parameters but only implies move_id is the identifier via 'single account.move'. It does not describe connection or tenant_code, nor their defaults. The description adds minimal meaning for move_id but ignores the other two parameters, leaving the agent partially informed.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool does a cross-layer snapshot for a single account.move, listing specific components (Odoo state, attachments, extraction history, skill status, next_step with blockers and hints) and declares it read-only. This is highly specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like ai_invoice_extract or ai_invoice_pipeline_summary.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage for inspecting a single move's comprehensive state but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusions or alternative tools are mentioned, relying on the tool name and context for differentiation.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.